Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RetroSicotte]

On the two different yards issue remember they are only a three quarter hour drive apart which means theyll be drawing on substantially the same labour pool.

The hell speeds do you drive at to get from Govan to over the bridge in 45 minutes? :p

[ArmChairCivvy]

The overall point, the whole cycle starting with Lafayettes and ending with their (partial) FTI replacement is a valid point though
- the only anomaly is cutting the Horizons short; and then patching up with a budget version, late in the FREMM run

... probably what we will do with T26s
- as the build and fitting out yards are separate, the ASW and AAW could be dove-tailed in the build prgrm
- however, we let it come to the mass obsolescense of T23s as the ASW arm, so a sequential build prgrm is sort of a 'must'

[donald_of_tokyo]

Hi Donald-san, a couple of points

Thanks.

... BAE was supposed to be building a frigate factory on the Clyde which by now would be cranking out T26s on a quick drumbeat but neither party wanted to make the long term commitment.

BAES reportedly proposed that if they get the 8 ships order at once, they will build 9 ships with the same money. This is very reasonable, considering how you need to pay for long-term sustainable industry (technology, work force and infrastructure). If state "majority governed" company like Naval in France, it is the nation which assures the long-term sustainability.

UK can do it. No problem. The key is assurance, not ownership. For example, how about TOBA for another 20 years?

The overall point, the whole cycle starting with Lafayettes and ending with their (partial) FTI replacement is a valid point though
- the only anomaly is cutting the Horizons short; and then patching up with a budget version, late in the FREMM run

Impressive is the consistency that, when export orders come in, the French ship's build schedule is shifted. They do not care about "a gap" for a year or two, because they will anyway build it.

RN is now wasting time in the game with HMG/Treasury, that "if once 19 escort is gapped to ~17, it will become permanent in due course", which makes logical decision impossible (like banning a few T23 now, which cannot be anyway manned because of man-power shortage, to save precious money to upkeep the fleet).

Not a good attitude. Just lack of trust.

[Scimitar54]

The Treasury need to remember the reason why it was set up in the first place! ........... To adequately fund the Royal Navy. Not to inadequately fund it, or to spend more money on fewer ships. If that is the way the treasury does it’s accounting, then I know which department needs to suffer the heaviest cuts.

[abc123]

BAES reportedly proposed that if they get the 8 ships order at once, they will build 9 ships with the same money.

Yeah, just the problem is- the RN/MoD don't wants to have 9 T26, because they don't have enough sailors for them.

[donald_of_tokyo]

BAES reportedly proposed that if they get the 8 ships order at once, they will build 9 ships with the same money.

Yeah, just the problem is- the RN/MoD don't wants to have 9 T26, because they don't have enough sailors for them.

Not sure. I think they do.

Currently ~12 out of 19 escorts have crew (In other words, ~seven escorts are with no crew). This means 2280 crew. Among the 19 escorts, I understand 4 hulls without crew are reasonable (in long maintenance, in normal rotation). So, if with 19 escorts, RN shall man 15 of them.

- Seven T26 (with 2 in long maintenance) each with 150 crew needs 1050. This is equivalent to crew for x5.5 T23 (each with 190).
- Five T45 (1 in long maintenance) needs 950 crew (190 each).

1050+950 = 2000. From 2280 crew, RN is left with 280.

If RN had been building x4 Light Frigates, this will mean 90 crews for x3 hulls (1 in long maintenance).

Good match, actually.

[abc123]

BAES reportedly proposed that if they get the 8 ships order at once, they will build 9 ships with the same money.

Yeah, just the problem is- the RN/MoD don't wants to have 9 T26, because they don't have enough sailors for them.

Not sure. I think they do.

Currently ~12 out of 19 escorts have crew (In other words, ~seven escorts are with no crew). This means 2280 crew. Among the 19 escorts, I understand 4 hulls without crew are reasonable (in long maintenance, in normal rotation). So, if with 19 escorts, RN shall man 15 of them.

- Seven T26 (with 2 in long maintenance) each with 150 crew needs 1050. This is equivalent to crew for x5.5 T23 (each with 190).
- Five T45 (1 in long maintenance) needs 950 crew (190 each).

1050+950 = 2000. From 2280 crew, RN is left with 280.

If RN had been building x4 Light Frigates, this will mean 90 crews for x3 hulls (1 in long maintenance).

Good match, actually.

[Lord Jim]

The Government should have insisted in having a "Golden Share" in BAe before it was allowed to absorb the majority of the UK Defence Industry, as this resulted in it become the only real option for many defence related procurement and support contracts over the past decades.

As for the T-26, I am still disappointed in the UK design. The programme should be given the same importance as the Carrier programme was given the number of jobs and skill are being retained. We are building a "Big", platforms for an ASW escort, and we need to make the most of the platform, giving it more of the Global Combatant capabilities it should have. I just wish we had a clearer idea as to how the MoD intends to fill the Mk41s on the vessels and what capabilities this will bring to the T-26. At the moment attention seems to be focused on what can be launched form its Mission Bay.

[serge750]

Would a ASROC type missile/torpedo system be high up on the list ? just incase the merlin cannot fly due to the weather/maintenance or whatever reason as ASW is the raison d'etre of the T26.

[Scimitar54]

If we don’t end up with more than 8 x T26, then it is fairly unlikely that the T26 will ever be used in the Global Combat Role originally envisaged. Will the 8 x T26 that we will (hopefully) still have ever need much in the way of additional armament as a CSG escort? If the Global Combat role is ever to be realised, then one of two basic options will be necessary.
Either:-
An additional batch of T26. Or
The further development of T31 to become an ASW Carrier escort.

Once again, government cuts have undermined the ability of the RN to pursue a coherent and agreed strategy to it’s logical (and necessary) conclusion. i.e. Wasting invested money, design work, time and effort in the T26 project whilst reducing the ability of the RN to fulfil its function.

If the recruitment & retention issue is to be solved, those affected will need to know that “the investor” (HMG) is fully committed to providing what is required. One might say “Give them the tools and they will do the job”.

Governments should realise without having to be told, exactly what the opposite of that will mean.

[RetroSicotte]

Would a ASROC type missile/torpedo system be high up on the list ? just incase the merlin cannot fly due to the weather/maintenance or whatever reason as ASW is the raison d'etre of the T26.

It has to be a given. Not even the modern MoD could be that stupid.

[Lord Jim]

I still strongly believe that after the first three T-26 we should move to the configuration of the Canadian and Australian variants, removing the "Mushroom" launchers for Sea Ceptor and adding between eight and sixteen Mk41 VLS solos n o that they are available as singletons, pairs or groups of four. This maximises the available space on the ship and the flexibility of the load out. Adding an eight cell forward and an additional standard length amidships should not be a complicated or costly exercise and the work for the former has already been done and the space taken up by the latter roughly matched the existing space taken up by the 24 "Mushrooms" located there. The First three ships could be brought up to the same spec at their first major refit/overhaul. A possible loadout of Sea Ceptor, FC/ASW and an ASROC type weapon would be a goof start. The FC/ASW would provide the ship a good Anti Ship and Land Attack capability. We could work with the Italians to develop a naval version of CAAM-ER and work with Lockheed Martin to modify their ExLS to allow between three and four to be installed in each MK41 silo, giving the Ship a greater zone of influence against air threats. How far the Artisan Radar can be improved or whether another will be needed during the life of the ships should also start to be looked at. I personally feel the Australian CEAFAR radar array has more potential than Artisan and maybe this should also be looked at for the next ships to be ordered. Finally we need to start looking for a replacement for the Phalanx 20 CIWS now, possibly by investigating the possibility of working with the US or other nations.

All of the above would tur the T-26 into the platform she was meant to be.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I still strongly believe that after the first three T-26 we should move to the configuration of the Canadian and Australian variants, removing the "Mushroom" launchers for Sea Ceptor and adding between eight and sixteen Mk41 VLS solos n o that they are available as singletons, pairs or groups of four. This maximises the available space on the ship and the flexibility of the load out. Adding an eight cell forward and an additional standard length amidships should not be a complicated or costly exercise and the work for the former has already been done and the space taken up by the latter roughly matched the existing space taken up by the 24 "Mushrooms" located there. The First three ships could be brought up to the same spec at their first major refit/overhaul. A possible loadout of Sea Ceptor, FC/ASW and an ASROC type weapon would be a goof start. The FC/ASW would provide the ship a good Anti Ship and Land Attack capability. We could work with the Italians to develop a naval version of CAAM-ER and work with Lockheed Martin to modify their ExLS to allow between three and four to be installed in each MK41 silo, giving the Ship a greater zone of influence against air threats. How far the Artisan Radar can be improved or whether another will be needed during the life of the ships should also start to be looked at. I personally feel the Australian CEAFAR radar array has more potential than Artisan and maybe this should also be looked at for the next ships to be ordered. Finally we need to start looking for a replacement for the Phalanx 20 CIWS now, possibly by investigating the possibility of working with the US or other nations.

All of the above would tur the T-26 into the platform she was meant to be.

No big objection.
- I prefer to increase ExLS for CAMM and in future SPEAR3, than adding 8-cell Mk.41 at bow. In other words, 196 CAMM/SPEAR3 in ExLS, and 24-cells of strike-length Mk.41 VLS.
- I do not care if CAMM is ER or normal, because I think it as missile CIWS. And number = cheapness is the key for anti-swarm.
- In the 24 cells, I think 8 ASROC is more than enough (even 4 is OK). It is only for "sudden-counter" = defensive weapon.
- Then, 16 (or even 20) of heavy land attack missile (capable of anti-ship) will be nice.

- In addition, I shall propose to add 8 NSM box launchers, as a common-SSM in escort fleet. It is cheaper than the heavy ones.

- Radar could be of Canadian version, which is more compact and looks much easier to add to/replace those of the RN version.

The main problem is the cost. So, this is totally a fantasy, sadly (replacing 48 mushrooms with 12-cell ExLS can be done relatively cheap, I think).

---- fantasy -----
I still think T31 program must be canceled, in favor of much more Floreal-like cheaper vessels with total program cost of 1B GBP for 5 "presence-ships", enabling remaining 0.98B GBP to be shifted into other 6+8 escorts and 2 CVs.

With 1B GBP program cost, the ship builder share will be 750M GBP at most = 150M GBP average. Then, the presence-ships' solution is rather limited, to reduce the design-cost; Vard7-100 or Holland-like (Babcock) or 10m-extended-River-B2 or down-armed-Al-Khareef (BAE/CL). In this case, the 3 River B1 EEZ OPV will go after the new T31' came, replaced with the 5 River B2s (now presence ships).

[abc123]

Would a ASROC type missile/torpedo system be high up on the list ? just incase the merlin cannot fly due to the weather/maintenance or whatever reason as ASW is the raison d'etre of the T26.

Absolutly not. The weather will allways be just fine and helicopter in the air. Who needs ASROCs or torpedos? RN knows the best. All other navies are just stooopid.

[shark bait]

I just wish we had a clearer idea as to how the MoD intends to fill the Mk41s

Is there any point bothering? It's ages until the first of class enters service, and will likely be the best part of a decade before they start expanding its role beyond ASW escort.

I'll bet it 10 years before the Navy are in a position to be launching cruise missiles from a T26, and whatever is planned today will be worthless in a decades time.

Would a ASROC type missile/torpedo system be high up on the list ?

Probably need something else alongside a Merlin. Ship launched light torpedo are pretty much obsolete these days, and the chance of a rocket launched light torpedo scoring a hit is very low.

I think the only real advantage is a rocket launched torpedo makes a splash and pings the submarine, hopefully forcing the sub commander to run away and try again tomorrow.

Are there any other options in the works?

I still think T31 program must be canceled, in favor of much more Floreal-like

Less does not equal more. The RN just bought five 'Floreal-like' ships it never wanted, having five more is not going to make the Navy any better.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Would a ASROC type missile/torpedo system be high up on the list ? just incase the merlin cannot fly due to the weather/maintenance or whatever reason as ASW is the raison d'etre of the T26.

Absolutly not. The weather will allways be just fine and helicopter in the air. Who needs ASROCs or torpedos? RN knows the best. All other navies are just stooopid.

Then, after RN selects ASROC, we shall say,

"Of course we need ASROCs. RN knows the best. All other navies, not using ASROC, are just stooopid."

[donald_of_tokyo]

I still think T31 program must be canceled, in favor of much more Floreal-like

Less does not equal more. The RN just bought five 'Floreal-like' ships it never wanted,...

Sorry, River B2 and Floreal capability differs by factors.

- Floreal is a 3000t large OPV hull, with twice the range of River B2,
armed as typical corvette of the day, with good helicopter capability. Has
anti-air capable radar, small CMS, ESM, soft-kill kits, SSM (now not), a 100 mm gun with optical FCS, and two 20mm cannons.

- River B2 is a 2000t middle-class OPV hull, among longer-range group,
armed as OPV (or coast guard patrol ships, aca., Japan coast guard), with only a flight deck. Has
anti-air capable radar, very small CMS, no ESM/soft-kill, no SSM, a 30 mm gun with optical FCS, and two mini-guns and 4 12.7mm guns.

I think difference between River B2 and Floreal is larger than the difference between Floreal and La Fayette frigates.

...having five more is not going to make the Navy any better.

You mean, only up-arming the T26 with all 2B GBP is better than splitting 1B for up arming and 1B for Floreal-like? May be.

[Jake1992]

I still think T31 program must be canceled, in favor of much more Floreal-like

Less does not equal more. The RN just bought five 'Floreal-like' ships it never wanted,...

Sorry, River B2 and Floreal capability differs by factors.

- Floreal is a 3000t large OPV hull, with twice the range of River B2,
armed as typical corvette of the day, with good helicopter capability. Has
anti-air capable radar, small CMS, ESM, soft-kill kits, SSM (now not), a 100 mm gun with optical FCS, and two 20mm cannons.

- River B2 is a 2000t middle-class OPV hull, among longer-range group,
armed as OPV (or coast guard patrol ships, aca., Japan coast guard), with only a flight deck. Has
anti-air capable radar, very small CMS, no ESM/soft-kill, no SSM, a 30 mm gun with optical FCS, and two mini-guns and 4 12.7mm guns.

I think difference between River B2 and Floreal is larger than the difference between Floreal and La Fayette frigates.

...having five more is not going to make the Navy any better.

You mean, only up-arming the T26 with all 2B GBP is better than splitting 1B for up arming and 1B for Floreal-like? May be.

IMO it’d be a waste of money to build Floreal like vessel now and would be better at looking to incorporate a security / low threat role in to a multi mission sloop that could replace all low end vessels from mcm to survey, this would allow the RB2s to return to UK EEZ if enough numbers are brought.

For me something that is like a hybrid between the old black swan concept and the Venari 95 concept is what is needed. 15-20 of these doing all low end work along with jobs such as Falkland, African coast and other security work would really free up the tier 1 and 2 escorts.

It could even be evolved from the RB2 design to keep commonality long with using the success of this design for future exports.
Say take the RB2 as is then widen the hull to 14-15m and lengthen it to 100-105m, rase the flight deck and add a wildcat hanger, have a open work deck with cranes or dividends that goes to a covered work deck under the flight deck.
Arm as see fit.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Interesting move.

1: Surprised to know, there is now more than 2000 person in Navy HQ. As RN's trained man-power is 29000, it is 6.9% of the total.

I'm not sure if this is good thing or bad thing. But, looks like an icon of "back to sea". May be with very sophisticated command systems, some of the intelligence analysis and decision making can be done onboard CVs, as well as T45 and T26s? Or, AIs will support the logistic plan making?

When RN want to "fight against" polititians, may be these HQ man-power is good to have. But, may be the political impact of "less ship at sea" imposing more damage on RN.

2: If 1000 person are sent to front line, I understand about 500 "onboard crew" can be generated. (because these person needs promotion, training, and rest). Here, 500 is,
- 2.5 escorts (190 each) = making the "manned" escort numbers increasing from current 12, to 14 (or 15) (almost fully manned), or
- one escort (190) and a Bulwark (310)

[abc123]

Are there any other options in the works?

A lot of swearing and fist waving in general direction of the sub?

[Tempest414]

For me the way ahead is to make what we have better as cheap as possible and fitting common systems when possible so for me something like

1) Have CAMM cleared for quad packing in A-50 VLS on RN ships MBDA say it can be done. Then fit one or two 8 cell units on Type-31 to allow them to carry 32 CAMM or a mix of CAMM and spear 3. This also allows Type-45 go from 48 Aster to 40 Aster and 32 CAMM without fitting anymore cells

2) Buy NSM and fit it to Type 23, 31, 45 giving all three types a anti-ship / land attack capability

3 ) fit 40mm Mk-4 to the B2 Rivers and a have UAV carried when over seas to allow a base line anti air and ISTAR capability

[RetroSicotte]

For me the way ahead is to make what we have better as cheap as possible and fitting common systems when possible so for me something like

I do have some critique of this route, really.

1) Have CAMM cleared for quad packing in A-50 VLS on RN ships MBDA say it can be done. Then fit one or two 8 cell units on Type-31 to allow them to carry 32 CAMM or a mix of CAMM and spear 3. This also allows Type-45 go from 48 Aster to 40 Aster and 32 CAMM without fitting anymore cells

Why fit Sylver to T31 and repeat the same issues as the T45 by restricting it to a small amount of missiles? Integrating CAMM with Mk41 would be far more versatile, and permit T31 to use a greater amount of munitions in the process. If you aren't locked into Aster, there is zero reason to take Sylver any more.

2) Buy NSM and fit it to Type 23, 31, 45 giving all three types a anti-ship / land attack capability

NSM is decent as an interim, but it only has a 180km range, which is utterly useless as land attack, you're looking at expecting ten times that range for that role. See Tomahawk, SCALP Naval, or Kalibr. It marketing "land attack" is like MICA marketing itself as a "BVR" missile. Just because it technically can doesn't mean it's worth a damn at it.

It's a short range AShM to fit to T23, 31, 45 to maintain the ability in a modern sense until FC/ASW can be fitted to them all (well, probably not T23), but that's about it.

3 ) fit 40mm Mk-4 to the B2 Rivers and a have UAV carried when over seas to allow a base line anti air and ISTAR capability

Why the 40mm? It already has a perfectly decent 30mm cannon. Upping to 40mm doesn't change the River's role or capability in any way at all for border patrol, counter-narcotics, or fishery protection. It will not be engaging aircraft. Ever. If you're sending Rivers out against missiles then you are doing something badly badly wrong.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sorry from aside.

Why fit Sylver to T31 and repeat the same issues as the T45 by restricting it to a small amount of missiles? Integrating CAMM with Mk41 would be far more versatile, and permit T31 to use a greater amount of munitions in the process. If you aren't locked into Aster, there is zero reason to take Sylver any more.

Agree. Who pays for integration of CAMM/ExLS into Sylver? I understand ExLS is "almost already" integrated into Mk.41, by Lockheed Martin itself. And, yes, Mk.41 users are more major than Sylver users.

NSM is decent as an interim, but it only has a 180km range, which is utterly useless as land attack, you're looking at expecting ten times that range for that role. See Tomahawk, SCALP Naval, or Kalibr. It marketing "land attack" is like MICA marketing itself as a "BVR" missile. Just because it technically can doesn't mean it's worth a damn at it.

It's a short range AShM to fit to T23, 31, 45 to maintain the ability in a modern sense until FC/ASW can be fitted to them all (well, probably not T23), but that's about it.

Here I agree to Tempest414-san, actually. I'm 100% sure, if the FC/ASW is, "stealthy", "intelligent", "long-range", and even "super-sonic", it will be very very expensive missile.

We all know TLAM is "exceptionally cheap" as a cruise missile, thanks to its huge mass production and simplicity. But it is still so-so expensive. RN has how many stocks of it? FC/ASW with higher capability and much less production number, no hope being cheap.

In many cases, other than deep strike, NSM will be much better option. It is cheap (not long-range and thus compact). It is stealthy and intelligent, but not super-sonic (important to make it cheap). (Un)Fortunately (?), UK has deep strike capability, CVTF. Yes RN needs not only CVTF strike, but also cruise missiles for deep strike. But, not in number, I guess.

3 ) fit 40mm Mk-4 to the B2 Rivers and a have UAV carried when over seas to allow a base line anti air and ISTAR capability

Why the 40mm? It already has a perfectly decent 30mm cannon. Upping to 40mm doesn't change the River's role or capability in any way at all for border patrol, counter-narcotics, or fishery protection. It will not be engaging aircraft. Ever. If you're sending Rivers out against missiles then you are doing something badly badly wrong.

Partly yes and no.
As to counter fast-boat swarm, 40 mm 3P looks better than 30 mm gun. So good to carry on escorts in Persian gulf. Depending on the future development program, 40 mm 3P may have AAW and ASW guided-rounds (as a compact version of 57 mm?), while none is trying it on 30 mm. Of course, these guns are never effective against super-sonic and agile ASMs. But, to counter low-subsonic drone-swarm, which is becoming more and more easy, 40 mm 3P is much better than 30 mm, and maybe even better than CAMM (because it is cheap).

# Laser? Maybe only AFTER 40 mm 3P (two decades or so).

But, of course, only if T31 introduces 40 mm 3P and all logistic chain are introduced. Then, 30mm could be "replaced" with 40 mm 3P, I guess.

# On the other hand, I personally prefer T31 NOT adopt 40 mm 3P. And, stick to
- 57 mm 3P (seeing continuous big investments for guided rounds = has a bright future)
- and a few 30 mm guns (cheap), supported by a few 7.62 mm mini-guns.(or 12.7 mm GAU-19Bs?).

[RetroSicotte]

if the FC/ASW is, "stealthy", "intelligent", "long-range", and even "super-sonic", it will be very very expensive missile.

We all know TLAM is "exceptionally cheap" as a cruise missile, thanks to its huge mass production and simplicity. But it is still so-so expensive. RN has how many stocks of it? FC/ASW with higher capability and much less production number, no hope being cheap.

In many cases, other than deep strike, NSM will be much better option. It is cheap (not long-range and thus compact). It is stealthy and intelligent, but not super-sonic (important to make it cheap). (Un)Fortunately (?), UK has deep strike capability, CVTF. Yes RN needs not only CVTF strike, but also cruise missiles for deep strike. But, not in number, I guess.

There is no sane way NSM replaces Tomahawk. As said, it's wholly useless at land attack, and for anything other than second line ships (as in the USN) or as an interim measure, is rapidly approaching obsolescence as an AShM for serious navies, when AShM's are poised to look at 500km as the minimum standard for relevancy.

But since it's unlikely FC/ASW reaches 1,000+, then you'll need to have a separate LACM anyway. Again, NSM is not that. Wasting budget on it past the interim measures only ensures you can't get the proper munitions to back up FC/ASW, like a boostered version, or Tomahawks (or their replacement). These are quickly becoming essentials. It is suicide to sit maybe 100km off a coast line just to hit something maybe 50km inland with an NSM. Pointless endeavor.

(Paraphrasing this one for space efficiency)

As to counter fast-boat swarm/UAV/add CAMM for this/that, 40 mm 3P looks better than 30 mm gun

Why are you trying to take on (likely AShM armed) boat swarms and (munitions laden) drone-swarms with a River? That's not its job. They are fishery protection, border watch, and general piracy/drugs work at most.

The OPVs won't be anywhere close to such warzones. Ever.

[donald_of_tokyo]

There is no sane way NSM replaces Tomahawk. As said, it's wholly useless at land attack, and for anything other than second line ships (as in the USN) or as an interim measure, is rapidly approaching obsolescence as an AShM for serious navies, when AShM's are poised to look at 500km as the minimum standard for relevancy.

But since it's unlikely FC/ASW reaches 1,000+, then you'll need to have a separate LACM anyway. Again, NSM is not that. Wasting budget on it past the interim measures only ensures you can't get the proper munitions to back up FC/ASW, like a boostered version, or Tomahawks (or their replacement). These are quickly becoming essentials. It is suicide to sit maybe 100km off a coast line just to hit something maybe 50km inland with an NSM. Pointless endeavor.

Thanks. So, I think you are proposing "FC/ASW" and "a long range land attack cruise missile" combined.

My proposal is more "a NSM (200 km range)" and "a long range land attack cruise missile added with anti-ship capability (1000+ km range)". This is because "500km as the minimum standard for relevancy" --> I take it more seriously.

For me, your option is "expensive+expensive" pair. Mines is "cheap and expensive" pair. The reason I favor the latter is, anyway RN is to get interim SSM (FC/ASW is too far away, even with no delay, which is 100% unlikely), and I think NSM is best fit. NSM can be a handy anti-ship capability, with limited land-attack capability, say, counter-attack Hoithi rebels. In this case, of course stationing a few tens of km ashore is not a suicide.

Not all enemy is China. Actually, China is only a fraction of the spectrum of enemy candidates.

On the other hand, long-range cruise missile will replace TLAM.

# It may deeply depend on how FC/ASW will be formulated, I guess.

(Paraphrasing this one for space efficiency)

As to counter fast-boat swarm/UAV/add CAMM for this/that, 40 mm 3P looks better than 30 mm gun

Why are you trying to take on (likely AShM armed) boat swarms and (munitions laden) drone-swarms with a River? That's not its job. They are fishery protection, border watch, and general piracy/drugs work at most.

No. I mean 40 mm 3P fleet wide, to replace ALL 30 mm guns. Only in this case, "keeping a 30 mm gun ONLY FOR OPVs" will be a logistic nightmare, and then River B2 OPVs will carry 40 mm 3P. This is my point.